Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Vinod Kanjibhai Bhagora - Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 1571 of 2024 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 16030 of 2018]
Decided On : 02-02-2024
(A) Service Law – Pension – Pension is earned by a government servant in lieu of tireless service rendered by him / her (as the case may be) during course of their employment and often is an important consideration for person(s) seeking government employment – Raison d'etre qua grant of pension by State Government would inextricably be linked to a concentrated effort by State Government to enable its former employee(s) to tide over vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age vide a pension scheme – Pension scheme(s) floated by State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to express provisions of Pension Rules – State Government is a model employer and ought to uphold principles of fairness and clarity. (Paras 10, 15 and 17)
(B) Service Law – Pension – Qualifying service – Prior employment of Appellant under Central Government contemplated an underlying pension – Appellant who has most certainly, implicitly been absorbed by State Government – High Court erred in its interpretation of Rule 25(ix) of Pension Rules and unfairly deprived Appellant from seeking inclusion of period of service rendered to Central Government as a part of ‘qualifying service’ under Pension Rules – Respondent No. 1 directed to consider service rendered by Appellant to Central Government in his capacity as Postal Assistant to be considered as qualifying service and thereafter re-calculate terminal benefits / pensionary benefits accruing in favour of Appellant and transmit arrears of such terminal benefits / pensionary benefits to Appellant within six weeks from today – Impugned Order set aside.[Rule 25 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022] (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Decision of High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 22341 of 2017 whereunder, High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is assailed here. Fulcrum of dispute before this Court pertains to whether Appellants’ subsequent employment with State Government could be construed to mean that Appellant had been ‘absorbed’ by State Government, such that Appellants’ prior service with Central Government would be considered as a part of ‘qualifying service’ in terms of Rule 25(ix) of Pension Rules.
Findings of Court:
Respondent No. 1 shall be free to seek pro-rata re-imbursement / contribution from Respondent No. 2 in respect of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits paid by Respondent No. 1 for period pertaining to service rendered by Appellant for Central Government.
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted. The decision of the High Court of Gujarat (the “High Court”) in Special Civil Application No. 22341 of 2017 whereunder, the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is assailed before us (the “Impugned Order”).
2. The Appellant was engaged by the Central Government as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division on 12.08.1983 and thereafter continued to serve in the aforesaid role up until 16.07.1993.
3. In the interregnum, an invitation for application(s) for recruitment to the post of Senior Assistant in the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, Government of Gujarat (the “State Government”) came to be issued. Accordingly, the Appellant herein obtained a No-Objection Certificate (“NoC”) dated 18.06.1993 from the Superintendent of Post Office, Gandhinagar Division and thereafter participated in the aforesaid selection process.
4. On 16.07.1993, the Appellant having been selected as Senior Assistant in the State Government, tendered a technical resignation in qua his employment as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division.
5. On 18.08.1993, the Appellant joined as a Senior Assistant in the State Government; and thereafter went on to serve the State Government for a period extending to 23 (twenty-three) years up until his superannuation (the “Subject Period”). Thereafter, the State Government only paid the Appellant terminal benefits/pensionary benefits to the extent of the Subject Period (the “Impugned Action”).
6. Aggrieved by Impugned Action of the State Government, the Appellant made a representation before the Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat Circle seeking the inclusion of the period of his service with the Central Government i.e., as a Postal Assistant in the Gandhinagar Postal Division between ‘1983 and ‘1993 to be considered in the grant of terminal benefits / pensionary benefits as per Rule 25 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2022 (the “Pension Rules”). However, vide an order dated 30.06.2014, the aforesaid representation came to be rejected on the sole ground that the Appellant had tendered an unconditional resignation.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Appellant was constrained to prefer a writ petition before the High Court. Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition and observed inter alia that the Appellants’ case would not attract the benefit envisaged under Rule 25 of the Pension Rules. The operative paragraph(s) of the decision of the High Court are reproduced hereunder:
“6. The petitioner has claimed the pensionary benefits from the State Government for the period he worked as Central Government for the year 1983 to 1993. Reliance is placed upon Rule 25 of the above Rules. However, considering Rule 25 of the above Rules, we are of the opinion that the same shall not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the hand. Rule 25 of the said Rules is with respect to the qualifying service. The employee who has rendered his service with the Central Government is thereafter absorbed in the State Government. Thereafter, it was found that he has not completed the qualifying service while working with the State Government. In that case for the purpose of qualifying service, the service rendered by him as a Central Government employee is required to be counted and that too for the purpose of qualifying service.
7. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule 25 of the above Rules would not be applicable.
8. Under the circumstances, as observed hereinabove, the petitioner has been paid the pension/pensionary/terminal benefits of the State Government where he last worked, considering the service rendered by him with the State Government.”
8. Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 25(ix) of the Pension Rules. In the aforesaid context, he has submitted that the Appellan
SupremeToday
Prior Central Government service may be recognized for pension benefits despite breaks in service under specific conditions.
The court upheld that a petitioner’s past service could be counted towards pension benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules where explicit conditions of absorption allowed for such recognition.
R.29(b) of the Kerala Service Rules does not allow independent pension claims post-resignation to a Central Government body if previous State service was not counted.
Point of Law : A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
